R v Lata
Case
•
[2018] NZHC 707
•17 April 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Lata [2018] NZHC 707
[2018] NZHC 707
17 April 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant, Ms Kasmeer Lata, has pleaded guilty to charges of dealing in slaves, dealing in a person under 18 for sexual exploitation, and receiving earnings from commercial sexual services provided by a person under 18 years. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending, the vulnerability of the complainant, and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court also considered the appropriate discount for the defendant's guilty plea and whether a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary.
The court found that the offending was of a high level of premeditation and planning, and involved the sexual exploitation of a vulnerable 15-16-year-old complainant over a period of 18 months. The court considered the breach of trust, the severity of the exploitation, and the harm caused to the complainant. The court also considered the defendant's lack of remorse at the time of the pre-sentence report, although it took into account the defendant's expression of remorse in a letter provided to the court. The court allowed a small discount for the defendant's lack of prior convictions and the extent to which prostitution was "normalised" in the defendant's own upbringing. The court allowed a 25% discount for the defendant's guilty plea, as it had relieved the complainant of the additional stress of trial. The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and five months to adequately denounce the defendant's conduct and to deter other offenders. The court sentenced the defendant to six years and 11 months' imprisonment for the lead charge, to be served concurrently with two years and 11 months' imprisonment for the Prostitution Reform Act charge. The court lifted the prior order suppressing the defendant's name, as the complainant wished her mother's name to be made public. The court suppressed all details of the defendant's co-offender to protect his fair trial rights.
The court found that the offending was of a high level of premeditation and planning, and involved the sexual exploitation of a vulnerable 15-16-year-old complainant over a period of 18 months. The court considered the breach of trust, the severity of the exploitation, and the harm caused to the complainant. The court also considered the defendant's lack of remorse at the time of the pre-sentence report, although it took into account the defendant's expression of remorse in a letter provided to the court. The court allowed a small discount for the defendant's lack of prior convictions and the extent to which prostitution was "normalised" in the defendant's own upbringing. The court allowed a 25% discount for the defendant's guilty plea, as it had relieved the complainant of the additional stress of trial. The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and five months to adequately denounce the defendant's conduct and to deter other offenders. The court sentenced the defendant to six years and 11 months' imprisonment for the lead charge, to be served concurrently with two years and 11 months' imprisonment for the Prostitution Reform Act charge. The court lifted the prior order suppressing the defendant's name, as the complainant wished her mother's name to be made public. The court suppressed all details of the defendant's co-offender to protect his fair trial rights.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Mens Rea & Intention
-
Breach of Trust
-
Vulnerability of the Complainant
-
Sentencing
-
Minimum Period of Imprisonment
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Lata [2018] NZHC 707
Most Recent Citation
R v Matamata [2020] NZHC 1829
Cases Citing This Decision
10
R v Lata
[2018] NZCA 615
R v Matamata
[2020] NZHC 1829
R v Kelly
[2018] NZHC 3183
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Hessell v R
[2010] NZSC 135
S v R
[2011] NZCA 324
Taylor v R
[2017] NZCA 574